Commission briefed on Alameda Solar grazing‑center application; site visit planned

Planning staff gave commissioners a high‑level update on three related Alameda solar applications at the Jan. 16 work session and recommended the commission schedule a site visit before acting on comprehensive‑plan compliance.

Adam, a planning staff presenter, told the commission the current filing is the third iteration of the project. “This actually will be the third time that this application in very similar forms has been applied for. First time was in 2022. That application was withdrawn prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing. 2023, the Planning Commission found that all 3 of the applications were not in conformance with the comp plan,” Adam said. Those earlier determinations were appealed and then withdrawn before the Board of Supervisors acted.

Staff described the project as a roughly 90‑megawatt facility comprised of three interconnected applications. “Total area of the 3 projects is just over 940 acres, 14 individual parcels with unique owners, and just over 516 acres, of the fenced in area, which I refer to as development area,” Adam said. He explained that underground utility easements will connect the three sites and that some parcels included in earlier reviews were removed for the current comprehensive compliance submittal.

Adam walked through parcel‑level changes: the north property totals about 618 acres with roughly 375 acres of fenced development area; the south property combines two parcels totaling about 302 acres with about 136 acres fenced; the interconnect/substation parcels total roughly 21 acres. He noted acreage shifts from previous filings and said wetland studies and parcel adjustments account for the changes. Staff also said there is not battery storage currently proposed in these applications.

Commissioners discussed process and timing. Adam and staff explained that under county ordinance solar applications must undergo a comprehensive‑compliance review before a special exception; the commission typically has 60 days to act or the application is deemed compliant unless the Board of Supervisors grants more time. Staff also described how applicants may seek a solar siting agreement with the Board of Supervisors; the siting agreement is a negotiated development agreement the board can accept, and that acceptance can affect the Planning Commission’s review path. Adam said applicants have emphasized a solar‑grazing element — a local farmer grazing sheep during the project life — and that the applicant has an agreement in place to that effect, but staff said some details of the farming agreement remain unclear.

Commissioners who had not previously visited the properties expressed interest in a field trip. Staff proposed scheduling a site visit after next month’s meeting so new commissioners could see the properties before the public hearing and determination in February. No final determination was made at the work session; staff will prepare the compliance review report for the commission’s February agenda.